I have decided that perhaps atheism is not the correct term for the way I view the world . I think it should reflect that as far as I can see the concepts God or gods are both undefined as God is supposed to be defined as that which cannot be defined . And how can something that by it's very nature not be defined by anyone be a concept at all? How can I define myself as an a-theist when in fact I am pro fact and pro conceptual driven reality and therefor am not so much an atheist as an advocate of the world and reality and I am driven by the passion to do things in a manner in accordance with the laws of the real world . So the whole debate about the non-concept God or the non-concept gods is exactly like the debate about Santa Claus or ghosts or the Easter Bunny .

So at the heart of Craig's arguments seems to be his willingness to support people who can't or don't want to work. So does that mean all my useless loafing relatives can come move into his house eat his food and defecate in his yard?

There are two kind's of businessmen in this county (women also) . The kind who asks for nothing from the government and succeeds or fails on his own merits . And the other kind the kind that succeeds with a small portion of his own money and a huge government loan . These second type are usually the type that steal you blind , run their companies into the ground and defraud investors . When dealing with any man/woman it is important to figure out what type of person is running the company and invest accordingly .

As to the so called social support network so lauded on other groups . Also known as the welfare state or nanny state . This was a huge con from when it was first created . The federal governments very own Ponzi scheme .

At the time it was created very few people lived long enough to ever collect. It is ironic that some of the same policies that are now costing us so much money ( Medicare and Medicaid ) are leading to everyone living longer . So we have about ten more years before the last of the baby boomers hit 65 this is the watershed moment . And Obamacare won't help matters any . Increased regulation of medical treatment and providing massive government funding for new state of the art expensive technologies is the very thing that led to the massive rise in healthcare costs in the first place .

If you were drinking a glass of water and you found out it had poison in it would you not immediately put it down and seek help ? Or would you finish the water and go back to the same well and consume more ? I think everyone can see my point .

Over the years even though the Republicans have claimed to deregulate things and be for less and smaller government . It is patently untrue . George W. Bush enacted more regulations in his eight years than Clinton did . The supposed deregulation of the Energy companies was a shell game with little real effect . Except in California where it cased a massive bureaucratic screw up and huge revenue losses . The only true solution to polluting companies isn't just deregulation . It's Deregulation plus the sale of every piece of so called government property in the U.S.A to private individuals . They would then be responsible for the use of the land and could be sued for allowing their pollutants to infringe on any one else's land . The so called public ownership of certain lands ends up meaning that people feel free to pollute it . This goes all the way from some idiot dumping a pile of trash in the desert to huge companies dumping toxic waste in the wilderness .

As to recycling I think it should be encouraged everywhere . It turns out you can recycle almost anything . I think even the long chain polymers and toxic waste products can be recycled and rendered reusable . It is of course all a question of money . There is a city in New Jersey that recycles all of there aluminum and other metals there tires batteries and trash . They have zero waste and they have a clean beautiful city and they even truck in other peoples trash to run their trash burning power plant . That also has soot scrubbers on it I believe . This should be a much better solution than New York City for instance that has barge loads of trash continuously taken out to sea and dumped . Anyway that's all for now.

We're almost on the same page. Do what you like as long as you're not hurting anyone else. The rest is negotiation, but dammit, those negotiations are complicated. I think that freedom should include, for example, the freedom to smoke weed, which endangers no one but me, but not the freedom to drive on public roads while stoned. (If anyone is curious, I don't smoke weed.) People should be free to have consensual sex with other adults, in any combination they want. But the right wing wants the freedom to exploit workers, to pollute the environment in the pursuit of short-term profits, and to defraud the public. Which of these behaviors is harmful to others? The right was all a-twitter a few weeks ago over new government efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. They insisted it's their right to buy whatever kind of light bulbs they want--and I would agree, if it weren't for pollution and climate change.

There's an old saying that "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I think your right to swing your fist ends considerably short of my nose. Where it ends exactly could be the subject of a lengthy debate. Where does your right to pump black smoke into the air end, or your right to inject carcinogens into the ground water? Where does my right to ride my motorcycle at 110 end? Where does a woman's right to control her own body end--if it does? My right to burn my trash in a barrel in the back yard? I was once part of a faculty committee investigating the harassment of members of a new student organization: a gay/straight alliance. They thought they had every right to crowd around the entrance to the meeting room shouting "Fag! Fucking dyke!" to the students trying to enter. Some I spoke to thought it was just free speech. Hmm. One guy said there were posters on campus with the number 666 on them. The posters, he said, were harassing him, so why couldn't he harass the queers? If the government, in the form of the campus police, stops the harassment, are they protecting the rights of the gay/straight members or violating the rights of the protesters?

So we agree on most everything, but I stick by my original point that the joys of free market capitalism are myths. When there was laissez faire capitalism, there were also robber barons and stock manipulators, all getting rich on insider information. There were also widespread illiteracy, ignorance, and poverty because short-term profits always outweighed the greater good. The preamble to the Constitution clearly states the reasons for creating the Constitution. One which we all know is to "provide for the common defense." Another, which you seldom hear mentioned, is to "promote the general welfare." That one, it seems to me, gives government broad latitude to make regulations for the common good. However much we may distrust our government--and believe me, I do--we would be fools to trust BP or Union Carbide or Monsanto.

Okay, I'm not an anarchist libertarian, I'm more of a minarchist. Almost all of my beliefs, social or political, stem from my belief that everyone has a freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do as they please. Simple but I can't find fault with it personally. Anyway, what I'm saying is I do believe that the government should enforce crimes that exploit other people or, otherwise, are not victimless. I do believe in government regulation, just not to the extent that you propose.

If I had to make a choice between freedom and security, I will always choose freedom. The there will always be corrupt individuals in big business but the most I or anyone else can do is educate people. Let people know that they should research options and find a product that suits their needs and coincides with their beliefs. If people don't listen, which is likely, then it still isn't the governments job to step in and force them to do so.

I think tobacco is a good example. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a single person, smoker or not, to tell you that they don't believe smoking is harmful. People are well educated about the effects of smoking. At that point, it is the individuals decision whether they want to smoke or not. The decision is effecting their own body, and it is their body to build or destroy. Same with fast food. I'm pretty fit (thanks to rigorous PT every morning at 0630), but every now and then, I want a #10 from Burger King; large, because I don't get to very often, but when I do, it's fantastic. Do I know that in excess, it's pretty unhealthy? Yes, but it makes me happy and it tastes good. The government should never be able to make it more expensive because they don't want me to eat it. I both smoke, eat fast food, and I can run 2 miles in 14 minutes. Does that mean it isn't harmful? No, it means I know it's harmful and I self-regulate. If someone does the same, weighs 300 lbs. and gets out of breath walking up a flight of stairs, then of course they're weak-willed, but it's not my job or the government's job to regulate their habits.

Also, it's illegal to impose a tax for the sole purpose of regulating behavior, yet the government does it anyway. Such as the tax recently put on cigarettes a couple years ago. Taxing big businesses because they sell harmful products is wrong. All it does is make it more expensive for the consumer, who is buying the product of their own volition. The companies aren't forcing anyone to buy the product. And that's where education comes in.

P.S.--Outside of the spirit of the debate, you probably should take jabs at Fox News. It's a news station made almost entirely of biased idiots. Having bias is okay, but not in the NEWS. Their job is to report facts and facts have no bias.

Just a note: Seeing the government from the inside is a wonderful way observe just how inefficient our government is. Not just in financial matters but in every aspect possible. I wish that was an exaggeration, but I swear, It's not.

Hey, I'm not offended. I don't expect the government to "hand out" jobs, but the Republicans have been promising since 1980 that Reaganomics would create jobs and that cutting taxes would create jobs by freeing up investment capital. Taxes are at their lowest since Ike, and the economy still suffers. What do they want? More cuts, less regulation, and freedom to destroy the environment. The cuts go to the rich, who supposedly create jobs, only now they create jobs in Indonesia and Mexico, not the US. Not all the rich are entrepreneurs; some are just investors, and investments in manufactured securities do very little to create jobs. The jobs to which I was referring are all the private sector jobs the right wing promises their policies will lead to, but which never seem to materialize.

Free market capitalism never worked the way we like to think it did because big money is always in power. Societies--even American society--consisted of a few rich and a whole lot of poor until the build-up for World War II (a shitload of government spending) and the social and economic programs of the New Deal (another shitload of government spending) built the American middle class, so what works and keeps people relatively happy is government regulated capitalism. Do we want sweatshops all over America, or do we want the government to protect workers from exploitation and unsafe working conditions? Shall we have children working in the coal mines again, or shall we have some government regulation? More realistically, shall we have the "freedom" to buy our gas guzzlers without seat belts, or shall we have life saving government regulation? Do we want the freedom to guess what's in our breakfast sausage (in Teddy Roosevelt's time it was the sweepings from the packing house floor) or do we want a government meat inspector to keep an eye on the process for us?

I'm not unhappy, by the way. I have a decent job as a college professor, though I worked very hard to get it and still work very hard to keep it. Maybe it is childish to strike my puny blow at Fox News, but on a larger scale, suppose more people were willing to forgo pleasure or profit for the greater good? Suppose no one was willing to sell cigarettes because they cause cancer? (The public health damage in the Third World, where governments neither regulate nor warn, and where American tobacco companies are putting their marketing efforts, is going to be enormous.) Suppose no one was willing to work for a bank that defrauds investors, or a lender that defrauds consumers? Pipe dreams, I know, a plot for a bad Ricky Gervais movie. When there's money to be made, no matter how harmful or vicious the work, someone will step up and make the money, even if they have to sell slaves or crack or defective body armor to do it. The faith involved in free market capitalism is the faith that the market is free. It's not. The choice we have is whether the government makes the rules in the interests of society or the corporation makes the rules in the interests of profit.

Kyle, I don't know where you're stationed, but thank you for your service. Stay safe.

PS: The only thing I found offensive was the implication that I might resort to name calling. I won't.

I don't expect to bring down Fox News by my refusal to support their advertisers. I know they don't care, and that it's a small gesture. It was only intended as an example of how difficult it is to know whom we are supporting with our consumer dollars.

There is no "faith" involved in free market capatalism. You don't need faith when its the only system that has proven to last, and keep people relatively happy. Emphasis on relatively, you're never going to appease everyone.

Other than that bit, I was with you right up until "where are the promised jobs?" and "I try never to buy from companies that sponsor Fox News." Okay, now I know why you're unhappy. You expect the government to hand out jobs, and you let Fox News decide your consumer habits. Really? Not just a tad childish? Think about that. You're not hurting Fox News. You think they spend they're overpaid time plotting about how to get you to buy their products? Short answer: No. They could give rats ass about you buying their products, yet you limit your options. All I am asking is that you think about how you're going about this "protest". I think your heart's in the right place but your head's not following.

And before you call me uber-conservative, or some other equally ignorant name, just to clarify, I am a libertarian.

Oh, and I'm in the Army. I live the government socialized healthcare "dream", and trust me, you can ask any military individual, it sucks something awful. We literally get excited about seeing civilian doctors and going to civilian hospitals.

P.S.--I don't mean to offend. If it came out that way, I apologize. Just trying to be honest.

People have faith in free market capitalism, and in some industries it works fairly well. But there are some industries in which profit and service present conflicts of interest. Health insurance is one, and investment banking is another. Government does need to act as a referee, regulating business in the public interest to protect us from fraud and to protect our environment. There aren't enough government employees to unravel the creative accounting used to conceal profits or to exaggerate profits to pump up stock prices. Corporate executives make millions in bonuses for outsmarting government regulators. A lot of them seem to be psychopaths or sociopaths. They just don't care about defrauding people, as long as they themselves are making money. Yet the right wing wants less and less regulation, insisting that more freedom for corporations creates more jobs. Taxes have been cut steadily since the 1950s and industries have been de-regulated. Where are the promised jobs? Government employees are sometimes inept, but they're up against the best legal and accounting talent corporate millions can buy. Small businesses are not the problem. Of course, in some American industries, a company can employ 1,500 people and still get tax breaks as a small business. As for voting with our wallets, it's almost impossible to know exactly who is profiting from the dollars we spend. I try never to buy from companies that sponsor Fox News, but I can't always keep track. With one merger after another, particularly in the electronic media, the number of sources we have for vital information keeps shrinking. Rupert Murdoch may soon own them all.